RayC

Exactly what point has been confirmed?

"I'm not a racist, xenophobe, Putin apologist, etc but .... " If you continue to put those who point out the flaws in your arguments on 'Ignore', you'll be talking to yourself before too much longer.

The Crown Estate is a property management company. If the institution of the Monarchy ceased to exist, the Crown Estate would continue to generate revenue and profit. I don't understand the principle behind linking the sum allocated to the HoS to perform their official duties to the revenue/ profits made by a company, especially given that the Monarch has no role in the day-to-day operation of the company. I am dubious to say the least, that the level of expenditure associated with the Monarchy is justified and offers 'value for money'. For example, "The total Sovereign Grant for 2022-23, amounted to £86.3 million (2021-22: £86.3 million), which is made up of a core grant of £51.8 million which funds official travel, property maintenance and the operating costs of The Sovereign’s household." (Source: https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23) compared with the costs associated with running the Office of the President of Ireland - an elected HoS -which amounted to €4.8m in 2021 (https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html). I accept that differences in functions, etc make a direct comparison of the costs of servicing the two HoS' households difficult, but I also would need some convincing that the cost of running the Royal Household should be 10 times that of the Irish President's Office. Imo the idea that the Institution of the Monarchy 'costs in' is, at best, unproven.

I'm almost certain that the amount paid to an elected UK HoS - whoever it might be - would be substantially less than the annual £86m Sovereign Grant awarded to Charles.

1319 marriages in the UK were found to be sham between 2016 - 2022; that's an average of less than 200 per year and 1.2% of the total number of cases highlighted as suspicious. You consider this to be a "significant" problem: I don't. I would consider it an act of folly - and a misallocation of resources - to spend any additional time, money and effort investigating matters further given the current figures. If the number of referrals increase then my view might change. Your latest link contains data from the 2013 report which you previously referred to, and even the more recent data is from 2019 so, yet again, it is outdated and largely irrelevant.

I don't have a problem. It's your opinion. But there's no point in discussing matters any more if all the evidence you have amounts to, 'I know what I know'.

Any event, between 19 February 1960 and 20 June 1982 (both dates inclusive) which would have caused Charles to renounce his (future) claim to the throne would have resulted in Andrew becoming first-in-line and this would have meant that he would now be King. So, yes strictly speaking, two significant events: An event affecting Charles' right to succeed AND the death of the Queen would have both been necessary for Andrew to become King. But you knew that is what I meant. There really isn't any limit to your pedantry, is there? (Cue reply about how neither of us can know what the other is thinking or some sarky remark about having no idea how my mind works).

But you see it as relevant to the topic to suggest that sham marriages are a problem in the UK (without any data to support your view)?

So if I've understood you correctly, you are saying that there is nothing wrong with being anti-immigration? Presumably, you don't see the irony in holding such a view whilst, at the same time, being an immigrant yourself?

What he says is never trust a non-white, non-UK trained doctor. He bases his conclusion on "Ravens are birds, all ravens are black therefore all birds are black" type logic.

As long as they don't expect me to follow their lead, people can believe in the Tooth Fairy for all I care, although I doubt that I would understand their reason for doing that either. Neither you nor I know anything about the OP's marriage situation, so you can't possibly rationally assume that the issue of sham marriage is of any relevance in this particular context. As the data shows, there is no significant sham marriage "problem" in the UK. It's just another attempt to beat the anti-immigrant drum.

George VI was, at one point, second-in-line for the throne. He became King. Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were, at one point, second-in-line for US presidency. They both became President. Prince Andrew was, a long period of time, second-in-line for the throne. He didn't become King but he was only ever one "significant" event from succeeding to the throne. I rest my case.

near·ly /ˈnirlē/ adverb 1. very close to; almost. Source: Google

The (non) issuing of Thai Non-O spousal ME visas has absolutely nothing to do with UK Home Office data and/or sham marriages in the UK. I would have thought that much was blindingly obvious but apparently not. The UK government has not increased the financial requirements for family visa applications in order to curb sham marriages, although I guess that might be a possible tiny by-product: It has done so in order to reduce the number of immigrants. It's just nonsense to suggest that the Home Office is "woke infested".

Official Home Office data vs. individual anecdotal evidence. Which is more credible?

Seasons greetings. I see that you are back to your pedantic self.

Second in line to the throne at one point.

I think that you should check the source of the data quoted by the "open borders brigade"; it's the Home Office. The report you link to is from 2013 so is now completely outdated and irrelevant. The link that I provided is from July this year so still very much relevant.

Most of you are being beastly to Prince Andrew. He worked very hard on behalf of the UK. More importantly in this context, he much prefers nights out at Woking's Pizza Hut to sordid sex parties. He said so and he was nearly King, so it must be true.

Unfortunately, there is currently no mechanism to expel Hungary. Introducing a mechanism would require Treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Hungary would not, of course, support any such measure.

Singapore has a "strongman" government but imo it is not authoritarian. Opposition is allowed and there are relatively free elections. A mixed economy is, of course, entirely possible but I'm not sure how you can have "selective fascism", and I'm even less sure that it would be desirable even if it were.

"Fascism isn't all bad". I guess that is true. Apparently Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover, and some of those Nazi uniforms did look very smart, so "all bad", no. The big "But ....." is when you look at Fascism as a political ideology and/or system of government. Then it is all bad and I cannot even try to understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Those in search of a desolate moral vacuum look no further.

That'll be why 75% of asylum applications are approved at the initial stage🙄

MSM, X. You seem to question the validity of any source which doesn't fit your narrative. Presumably Pravda and 'Russia Today' are to be believed?